9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorisation and all other documents directly from the exporters which resulted in fraudulent export. The act of negligence on the part of the appellant was only to the extent of not verifying the authenticity of the documents and to check whether the orders have been placed by the exporters. The appellant has placed documents to show that the KYC documents were authorised by the exporter and also placed the mahazar which shows that the department had seized certain documents which included original attested copy of KYC documents of the exporter including certificate of IEC, GST registration certificate, PAN card and Aadhar Card. Since based on these documents, they had verified online and filed the shipping bill in good faith; they canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Regulations (CBLR) 2018 and therefore, they were issued with show-cause notice which culminated into impugned order wherein the Commissioner revoked the license and ordered for forfeiture of entire security deposit and imposed penalty of ₹50,000/-. The appellant is in appeal against this impugned order. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel submits that one Mr. Satishkumar claiming to be representative of the exporter sought the services of the appellant to export Industrial Ductile Pipes . Mr. Satishkumar submitted all the export documents along with the KYC documents attested by the exporter in original. With these documents, the genuineness of the exporter was verified online from the webpages of the Government Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uineness of the exporter. K. S. Sawant Co vs. CC, Mumbai: 2012 (284) ELT 363 (Tri.-Mum.) Shri Pradeep Seth vs. CC, New Delhi: Final Order dated 27.2.2023 (Tri.-Del.) Trans Asia Shipping Services vs. CC, Bangalore: Final Order dated 5.6.2023 (Tri.-Bang.) M/s. Sadagati Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (Air), New Delhi: Final Order dated 29.5.2023 (Tri.-Del.) M/s. Ashok Malhotra vs. CC (Airport), New Delhi: Final Order dated 30.05.2023 (Tri.-Del.) E. Maj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (Airport) New Delhi: Final Order dated 24.05.2023 (Tri.-Del.) 4. The Authorised representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. On perusal of records, it is observed that a show-cause notice No.155/2021-22 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuineness of the goods as the verification or examination of the goods is the statutory function of the Customs. They may not have the knowledge of any mis-declaration of the quality, quantity, nature and value of the goods by the importer/ exporter. After recording the above observations, the Commissioner finds that the appellant had not received any authorisation from the exporter for the said consignment as per the Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR 2018. Accepting the fact that the shipping bill was filed based on the KYC documents, invoices and packing list made by Mr. Satishkumar, Commissioner alleges that the appellant should have received authorisation and all other documents directly from the exporters which resulted in fraudulent export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
